Pennsylvania Electric Rate Increase

Nov 26, 2021 Last reply: 4 years ago 80 Replies

Thanks for pointing out the inefficiency for gas in power generation. I was under the misunderstanding that it was very high.

The numbers you give undermine the whole electric car push by the greenies.

A toaster is faster and easier.

Maybe. I certainly wouldn't mind it if nobody had tailpipe emissions and it was all transferred to the electric power generation facility.

Cindy Hamilton

California Proposes Limiting Natural Gas Use in New Construction Starting in 2023.

Offhand, it appears to me that you have no expertise or facts to back up your assertions.

"So a leading edge (at present) residential heat pump can deliver heat at 600% efficiency, compared with a gas heater at 50% to 95% efficiency."

I think your numbers are off. A 12-panel setup (350w panels) should produce about 3.5kw peak. Your insolation is better than mine, so you should get better than 35KwH/day for most of the summer.

And prices are close to half they were years ago.

It is true that Floridians don't pay the full cost of their electricity. But that will change.

Out of sight out of mind huh?

OTOH we still make a lot of electricity with coal and a modern EFI car engine is much cleaner than a soft coal plant and much more efficient.

Not the same. You don't get those little crispy spots that make it so good. If you don't appreciate the difference, go for it.

Prices are coming down on solar. I agree with that but when they looked at the available space they proposed 2.3 KW and the company told me, real life experience is you can only average that out to 6 hours a day at the rated capacity. That pro rates against the fact that you only get optimum radiation a few hours a day without tracking and you sometimes have clouds and rain during that peak time. I doubt they had reason to lie. When they wrote the proposal the price for

2.3kw was $17,260 minus all the rebates but the $9k Florida rebate program that would have made this attractive ran out of money. At 11 cents a KW/H it takes a while to get that back.

Who pays the rest? Explain.

While you'll likely disagree:

formatting link

I recently read about one of the projects to distribute solar cookers to third world countries. The women in Afghanistan complained because the naan didn't have the nice smoky flavor you get when cooking over a cow dung fire so the organization sent a barrel of liquid smoke with the next batch of cookers.

They estimated that Ma Sayyid was inhaling the equivalent of three packs a day when cooking chow for the Sayyid family.

Tailpipes are pretty clean now with catalytic converters and the like. The greenies really object to carbon dioxide and call it a pollutant. It is hypocritical of them to also object to nuclear generation.

Rebates and tax breaks means those of us that do not have this stuff pay for it.

I think my utility uses mainly natural gas.

Makes me faintly nauseated to get behind some poorly-tuned engine. The utility has to have scrubbers. Joe Sixpack's crappy old pickup is free to spew here in Michigan.

Cindy Hamilton

Michigan seems to have a ~ 3-way split :

formatting link
Sources of Michigan utility-scale electricity generation: full-year 2020

Natural Gas (32.8%) Nuclear (28.9%) Coal (26.7%) Wind (6.4%) Hydroelectric (1.7%) Biomass (2.1%) Solar (0.3%) Petroleum (0.1%)

I thought hydro might be a little more ! ? Ontario is ~ 23 % hydro .. John T.

So it is just the normal political posturing. You can point to similar hidden costs in any electricity generation method. Most "green" energy involves a lot of back end costs when the panels or turbines are at end of life and get dismantled. That gets added to the initial manufacturing pollution and the tax subsidies. The worst example is nuclear but wind and solar are not far behind.

FPL is a big adopter of solar tho. I doubt it is a big player in the end. We mostly use nat gas these days. It is way better than the bunker oil plant we had before, except for the manatees. The gas plant is so efficient, they are not pumping enough waste heat into the river.

The technology is not really there yet for nuclear. The end to end costs are prohibitive even in the power they produced was free. If you are willing to live with burying the waste and making a permanent monument out of the decommissioned plants. If they could better address the back end cost it might be a player. Unfortunately wind and solar have a back end cost too. The claim that there were 14,000 abandoned wind turbines was debunked but they don't want to admit how many there actually are. The big problem is the cost of taking them down far exceeds any scrap (recycle) value of the parts and the blades end up being solid waste. The prediction that they last 20-30 years also isn't working out in actual practice. The offshore farms are going to be crap in a decade, if they last that long, particularly if they try it in warm water. Anyone with a boat understands how hard it is to have anything in salt water. The warmer the water, the worse it is.

That is probably not an EFI engine unless he is just ignoring the check engine light. These days emission testing is just scanning the ECU for codes.

Would not be so here in Delaware as emissions testing for car registration is required. I see it is not required in Michigan. I think some states may not require it in less populated regions.

How much of that is Niagara? I assume you get a piece of that.

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required